I was reading Cheryl Schatz's blog and came across a comment by Lydia regarding the official biography of Dorothy Patterson, wife of Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. Lydia pointed out that Dorothy Patterson's biographical sketch reveals she shared "a midnight banquet with Yasser Arafat in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces." Incredulous, I went and read the offical biography for myself, which further revealed, "Dr. (Dorothy) Patterson has traveled to more than 75 countries; she met with Pope John Paul in his private apartment in the Vatican; she served as Chair for President Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Bible Committee and was received in the Oval Office; she has had coffee with former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in his Knesset office; she’s been the guest of Yaser Arafat at a midnight banquet in Saddam Hussein’s palace guest house in Baghdad. "

Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini is the full name for the now dead terrorist known to the world as Yasser Arafat. My friend, Mosab Yousef, has made clear to me the atrocities performed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East, particularly the physical abuse and mistreatment of Arab women. Without a doubt, Mrs. Patterson believes the mistreatment of women by Yassar Arafat and the PLO to be as evil as we all believe it to be. That's not the issue. Mrs. Patterson has established herself at the head of a growing movement in the Southern Baptist Convention which encourages everyone to adhere to quiverfull theology, patriarchal leadership and family integrated worship. In this environment, children and women are seen and instructed, but not to be heard. Men relate to men, and women to women, with the woman having no authority over, nor right to teach those of the opposite sex spiritual truth. The head (the man) votes for the family, and the girls serve the father. For those who have a hard time imagining this movement in churches, just spend a few minutes reading some really powerful writings of women who have escaped this suffocating ideology--here, here and here.

Dorothy Patterson, a self-professed "homemaker" and outspoken advocate of all things patriarchal in the SBC, puzzles me by placing "sharing a midnight buffet with Yasser Arafat in Saddam Hussein's palace" on her biographical sketch. It's not that I think she should not list the banquet or her travels to 75 countries as some of her accomplishments; it's just that the events seem incongruous and incompatible to the image Mrs. Patterson wishes on all other Southern Baptist women--as well as the image she claims for herself through her outspoken ideology. If Mrs. Patterson's life, as she would have everyone believe, is that of the consumate "homemaker," then I would encourage Southern Baptist women everywhere to model Mrs. Patterson's life (as listed on her biographical sketch) and ignore her teachings.

We need more women leaders, more powerful and influential females, more movers and shakers from the female gender, women like Mrs. Patterson, within the SBC. I commend her for her midnight buffet with Yasser Arafat. One of these days I'd like to know what was actually said over the fondu.

But the problem we have in the SBC right now is that people like Mrs. Patterson seem to have the dysfunction of denying what is true in practical reality and espouse an ideology based on a radical, theoretical, impractical--and may I say unbiblical--ideology of male headship.

I always wondered what one eats at a midnight buffet? And then when do they get to sleep, after a midnight buffet?

I predict this post will generate more than 200 comments.

Pastor Wade you are on the mark to show the discrepancy between words being advocated and those being practiced. I believe Our Lord Jesus Christ did say something to that effect to the Pharisees ... Actually much more caustic!

To be fair to Mrs.Patterson, the PLO was recognized by the Israeli Govt. in 1993 as a legitimate government entity of the Palestinians.

Most of the women fleeing the Patriarchy, Quiverfull and Male Headship movement are not dreaming. They are facing a reality that most of the SBC Leadership are blind to.

Ultimately it will be the women who will raise up and overthrow this yoke, which is extremely burdensome on them.

You wrote: seem to have the dysfunction of denying what is true in practical reality and espouse an ideology based on a radical, theoretical, impractical--and may I say unbiblical--ideology

I just want to comment on the poignancy of this observation. The practical reality for many, many women is that love, approval, and acceptance from parents or husband AND God is contingent upon roles, behavior, performance; is based on works, not grace, and utilizes copious amounts of fear-based control.

And yet, as your remarks reflect, too often this reality is denied. Proponents are careful to artfully dodge : "Where have we said we teach works over grace?" And yet subtle, daily messages slowly suffocate spiritual breath out of tender hearts.

Thank you for recognizing truth and for your willingness to bring awareness to these things ~ for extending a cup of cold water to the least of these.

Adoption is a very cool and noble thing. Can we not talk about that? The point of the post- if I understand at all- is that the Patterson's have somehow 'told the rest of us' what to do and yet do not do that. I think, hope maybe, that most of us think that the kind of life Dorothy Patterson has lived and is living is an exemplary kind of life. The kind of life that we hope most women could live. The problem is that what is being articulated is not that kind of life. So, two things:

One: Since many of us don't like being told by someone else what kind of life we should be living let us NOT in turn talk about what kind of life the Patterson's should be living.

Two: Since there is an obvious disconnect between what many SB's do and say concerning the role of women maybe we could have a comment stream dedicated to formulating ideas that put our ideal of women's roles in line with our theology of women's roles.

But then this comment would be telling you what to do which is what I said that we didn't like very much. We SB' are a difficult bunch.

"Dr. (Dorothy) Patterson has traveled to more than 75 countries; she met with Pope John Paul in his private apartment in the Vatican; she served as Chair for President Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Bible Committee and was received in the Oval Office; she has had coffee with former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in his Knesset office; she’s been the guest of Yaser Arafat at a midnight banquet in Saddam Hussein’s palace guest house in Baghdad."

I would like to know who paid for all this world travel? This kind of “Living Large” by a select few leaders of the CR is exactly why the CR has all but lost it credibility with many younger Southern Baptist.

I am so tempted to say more…… but I need to just step back on this one and take a deep breath.

@Brent ... a proper women homemaker (in the SBC patriarchial scheme of things) would not be advertising a meeting between herself and a world leader ... because women meet/speak with women; they do not engage with men. At. All.

She is engaging in what is generally known as cognitive dissonance in the rest of the world. This is when the ideas that you espouse are not what you live.

I cannot believe that some are actually practicing this "Dugger" lifestyle as practical theology. I aplaud those who desire to live a lifestyle as they understand in scripture, but I cannot for the life of me find quiverfull families, family worship, and patriarchy supported in the New Testament.

And, though I believe the Bible to be God's Word, as a Christian our reading of the Old Testament is informed by the New Testament, particularly Jesus. I would love to see the theological arguments, the manipulation of scripture, particularly the prooftexting to demonstrate these positions.

I understand the point of your article. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how either lifestyle, the one Patterson leads, or the one she teaches, is compatible with Christ-following.

Strider: I can't help but respond to your comment. The Pattersons are teaching quiverful and patriarchy(hierarchy) in their college. I understand that Paige Patterson just implemented this into his hiring practices as well. This article highlights that one thing is being promoted even to the point of how they hire, they are grooming other ministers to go out and preach this, yet the appearances differ from their teaching. Thus a post is quite appropriate I think.

What I want to know is how somebody living on a College President's salary can go on all these African safaris and send his wife all over the world...their princely lifestyle seems to suggest something different than a humble man and women of God.

I see Greg posted a similar thread before I finished my comment. I have the same concerns and had to delete some of my post for fear of recrimination. But a phrase comes to mind..."follow the money".

Sorry Debbie, I have been saying critical things about Patterson since 1983. I was an anti-CR-methodology guy from way way back. I just thought that since criticizing him since 1983 has done nothing then perhaps we could have a healthy debate on this post. My bad.Ignore me gang- bash away, it might make you feel better.

You obviously think very highly of Quivering Daughters. I've read quite a bit through the site and found some things I agree with and some things I disagree with. I think you know I respect your opinion and am not setting you up in asking: Do you think that if men spoke of their value as men in the language that the women on that sight speak of themselves, that they would be accepted as anything other than arrogant?

IOW, It has been said that a sub-dominant race cannot be racist. Should we believe that the sub-dominant gender can never be sexist?

Again, no trying to stir up a hornet's nest, just trying to see where I might have a vestige of patriarchy dying to get out. :)

Seminary trustees voted Oct. 21 to add the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to the seminary’s policy manual under "Guiding Documents and Statements."...Patterson, who had a hand in drafting the Danvers Statement, said it will serve as a guide in hiring and evaluation processes.

"Do you think that if men spoke of their value as men in the language that the women on that sight speak of themselves, that they would be accepted as anything other than arrogant?

IOW, It has been said that a sub-dominant race cannot be racist. Should we believe that the sub-dominant gender can never be sexist?"

Darby, Have you ever wondered why we have a racial problem after so many years of advancement, affirmative action, MLK street names, special holidays, Institutional apologies, etc?

Such are the lasting effects of the sin of preeminance. Right or wrong. It lasts.

The real problem is that the patriarchy movement is not going away. It is getting louder. And it is becoming entrenched in the SBC. (Russell Moore has called for more Patriarchy and less complimentarian)

Do not think for one moment those women at Quiverfull were involved in Christianity. They were not. They were involved in cults.

They need the REAL Jesus Christ. And then they will have no need to try and give themselves worth.

In looking back at your question and my response, I saw that I did not give you an answer.

You asked;

Do you think that if men spoke of their value as men in the language that the women on that sight speak of themselves, that they would be accepted as anything other than arrogant?

I find that women who have been the subject of intolerable abuse will sometimes say things, do things and write things that come across to those who have not experienced such abuse as possibly angry or arrogant.

I just receive it as an expression of hurt.

The arrogancy that concerns me is the arrogancy of those in power, not those without it.

Personally I think this whole post and the majority of the comments to be out of line. I am NOT a fan of Paige and/or his wife but in my book, a President's wife is off limits. I don't care if she does teach, she is no different than pastors' wives out there serving the Lord.

Surely there is something we can find to attack other than another man of God's wife.

Curious question -- this story of her dinner with Arafat (as well as the fact that Dr. Patterson's adoptive brother being a Palestinian) has been circulating for quite some time. Why bring it up now? Timing is curious.

I laughed while reading this post because I too needed a Dr. Dorothy fix after reading cheryl's blog. I read further though to Dr. Dorothy's publications and other works and was shocked (Oh My!) to know that I own a copy of "the NKJV Nelson study Bible" where none other than Dr. Dorothy wrote the study noted for James. Now i guess I cannot use this Study Bible anymore. For a woman has exegeted Scripture for me. She has "attempted" to teach me Greek. Did you hear me? A woman would dare to teach me Greek.

:)

PS: I got the Bible free from a book clue and it has sit on the shelf ever since. So not too much of a loss.

If you work at SWBTS and know Mrs. Patterson, please share with her this 'misunderstanding' that her 'bio' contains:

Where it says, "she met with Pope John Paul II in his private apartment in the Vatican", please know that the Pope's apartments in the Vatican contain public rooms and his 'private' quarters. The Raphael Reception Rooms are NOT in the 'private' area of his apartments. They are in the 'public' area of his apartments.

I think the misunderstanding may have been that Mrs. Patterson was perhaps invited to a 'private meeting' with the Pope, but that it was held in a public reception room.

The Raphael Rooms are graced with the magnificent painting of the artist Raphael. She would most surely remember these rooms.

I have news for him. There is theology in everything. As in one sermon Mac Brunson preached on the theology of the eye brow. Well there is lot more theology in cooking than else where. Ok, exept The Bible. So if men are eating the dishes created by women, then are they being taught theology?

My answer is yes. So please ban the female cooks. Hire makes cooks.

BTW is the pastry chef a male? Are all the chefs in pecan manor males? If not, PP and his dinner crowds are being taught theology by women when they eat their dinner.

There is a wonderful movie (I am too lazy to research this), that a lady makes dinners with lot of love and as people eat the dishes, that love is passed on to them.

Theology is not always preached as a sermon from a magic pulpit. It is expressed and taught by God in so many other ways. And yes, daily countless men learn theology from women.

In my opinion, Joe was making fun of Debbie Kaufman saying, “I understand that Paige Patterson just implemented this into his hiring practices as well.”

Joe, do you ever apologize?

Wade agreed with Tom Parking saying, “Huh?” to RM saying --"Surely there is something we can find to attack other than another man of God's wife."

I didn’t know God had a wife. :)

Hey! I just did what some do with Scripture like: “…unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 saying one must be born a natural birth of water vs. being baptized)

I am familiar with the quiverful movement. To be fair, I went to the quivering daughters blogspot.

I will state up front that we did not, do not live the quiverful lifestyle. Our daughter was not raised that way, and our granddaughter is not being raised that way.

But it is misleading to imply that Miss Dorothy has come up with some new diabolical scheme, or that the movement is somehow "Southern Baptist."

It is, plain and simple, just the way things were for so long. It is just the way things still are for many women in the United Pentecostal Church, many holiness sects, most of Latin America, and most of my Hispanic neighbors.

At the quivering daughters blogspot I "learned" that it is somehow abusive for a family to set standards with consequences for disobeying them. I seriously doubt a quiverful dad will deliberately run over his daughter with a jeep and flee the country as recently happened in Arizona in a Muslim family.

Instead, according to the blog, a daughter wearing pants might not be allowed to be in the family photo.

Big deal.

Have we REALLY reached the point where to disagree with a woman's opinion is to be held to be an abuser??

This smells like more anti SBC politics as usual, something we were promised was gone from this blogspot.

If you are referencing me, why is it wrong to ask when these meetings took place? And if she shared the Gospel?

Why is it wrong to ask "What parts of the Gospel did Dorothy share with a Muslim terrorist (Yasser Arafat)? He did need to hear the Gospel--we all need to hear it and hear it and hear it again!

Her husband, Paige often says we must share the Gospel with everyone (AND HE IS VERY CORRECT ON THIS ISSUE). He was even so silly as to go on stage with a 50 caliber machine gun at one point (IIRC) talking about "Holy War" etc. When he would come to MABTS yrs ago, he would always freely tell us that we were not doing enough to reach the world for Christ. I want to know what happened when his wife (and possibly Paige Himself) met with one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century? Is that too much to ask?

The picture of Paige Patterson ' on stage with a 50 caliber machine gun at one point (IIRC) talking about "Holy War" etc.'

The picture of his wife meeting with Pope John Paul II in the Vatican.

And then comes the picture into my mind of a tiny woman who sacrificed her own well-being for those that she loved in China, and died of the effects of starvation as a result.

Only one of these images speaks to me of the strength of the Southern Baptist people. And it has nothing to do with anger, or 'fighting', or standing among those of prominence in the world.

The hypocrisy of some cannot wipe out the awesome testament to the love of Christ of many, many Southern Baptist missionaries.The hypocrisy of some isn't strong enough to overcome that kind of love.You mustn't forget that.

(Same Amy but no longer working at the seminary. BTW, really enjoyed when you and Cole tried to get me fired from the seminary for commenting on his blog. Please also avoid attempting to discredit me as nothing more than a SWBTS employee because of my questions. Legit questions that I think deserve an answer.)

The only unusual circumstances over the timing of this post is the fact I'd never read her bio before yesterday.

And it is a big deal Linda. To be excluded from anything that involves family is pain beyond imagination and it is a big deal. To minimize it shows lack of understanding as to what this actually entails.

I imagine Dorothy Patterson doesn't see her world travels as incompatible with her role as homemaker. They only conflict if you assume the worst caricatures of her position.

Brent: This statement has me completely puzzled. She travels the world(thus is not home for her husband, thus cannot fulfill her duties as a homemaker) and the Patterson's only have two children, which regardless of the circumstances, which they could certainly adopt if they truly adhere to the quiverful, but it should make the Pattersons more compassionate toward those who have one or two children by choice, just as I have no problem with those who choose to have large families. It is hypocritical no matter how you try and explain it away.

Classes in homemaking are offered at SWBTS, no theology courses, no hiring of women to teach men, yet she can teach men. She can leave her nest and travel the world, she is on staff at SWBTS, she writes for the gender blog which has both men and women as readers, not to mention addressing young male ministers which she has done every year at SWBTS etc. Come on Brent.

I can assure you with the integrity of my word, I have not, nor ever would, seek your firing. If it's any comfort, had I sought your firing at Southwestern, it would have guaranteed you a job until Jesus comes or death (whichever's first). :)

The only employment issues with which I have ever been involved with at SWBTS are two where I sought to keep women hired, not fired.

Question: where DOES the money for all the travel and luxuries come from? How was it collected? From whom was it collected?Did the individuals contributing understand that they would be paying for the luxurious life styles of a few in leadership, or were they told that the funds were to be used in any other ways?

Is there an accounting for how much was spent on the Pattersons' life-style and travels 'for the SBC'?

If not, why not?

I have no business to ask these questions, nor any right to expect answers to them. But one does wonder about the source of the funding and the possibility of in-your-face flaunting of the uses of other people's contributions.I hope some in the SBC have asked responsible questions.

I know, of course, that the Patterson's would never fund their lavish life style from monies collected in the good name of missionaries like Lottie Moon. That would just be too great an insult to the memory of those saints.

(Same Amy but no longer working at the seminary. BTW, really enjoyed when you and Cole tried to get me fired from the seminary for commenting on his blog. Please also avoid attempting to discredit me as nothing more than a SWBTS employee because of my questions. Legit questions that I think deserve an answer.)

Amy, your comments here should have guaranteed you a promotion at SWBTS!

Question: where DOES the money for all the travel and luxuries come from?.

L's: It appears some are part of the "royalty" within SBC. Some of these are Mega Church First Families. In PP situation, his family could be considered as a First Family of the CR "takeover" of SBC and as the President of SWBTS.

I am sure lot of people feel PP's family deserves the perks and benefits as befitting royalty.

Linda, What is the big deal? I know a couple who left the patriarchy movement and now minister to those who are fleeing it. They took in two 20 year old girls who did not even know each other but ran away from their families.

Neither one had ever been to a GYN. It would be found that one of them had a life threatening tumor that had to be removed right away. Neither one had been allowed to go to college but were forced to stay under their father's authority until they married. Their life consisted of watching the younger kids, sewing, cooking, etc. Of course, there are few young men and then they would be marrying into the same thing.

Both had been homeschooled and their only outlet for social was the patriarchal church where women had to be silent.

Both were from financially secure middle class families whose dads had typical professional managerial jobs.

There was no financial reason for them not to get to see a Gyn or go to even a close by community college. They simply were not allowed. They both ran away. With nothing. No money, car, etc. Neither one had ever been taught to drive. Neither one had ever been allowed to wear pants.

That is Patriarchy and quiverfull movement. And it is more pervasive than you think. The SBC is headed this way. When we have professors at our flagship seminary teaching that women are made in the 'indirect image of God', a derivative, and another seminary installing kitchens to teach women how to be good wives, it is time to pay attention.

Woah. A girl is excluded from a family photo for wearing pants, and Linda thinks this is no big deal? Sounds like emotional abuse to me. It definitely sends an ex-communication type message. "You are not really part of this family because you're such a pants-wearing sinner." This is not healthy, not gracious, and not Christian.

My Grandaddy had a perfect observation for this situation: "The higher the monkey climbs the tree, the more you see his (or her) tail!"

I was in Paige's office at SEBTS. Such ostentation is beyond description. It had to do with fancy furniture and pictures all over the wall to "prove" what a theological mover and shaker he is.

How many missionaries could have been funded with the excessive spending over, not just Patterson's renovation, but his predecessor as well? It is no wonder we are out of reserve funds to tide the SBC mission effort through national tough times!

What fascinated me most was the "glamor shot" picture of Dorothy sans Minnie Pearl hat and frumpy dress. I wonder what she wore to the midnight buffet?

All this has nothing to do with sharing the Gospel, rather proving what a fine set of company our "King of the SBC and wife" keep.

Give me a break!!!!

Matthew 23 clearly comes to mind.

My favorite President's column from SEBTS days was about how Dr. Patterson's hound dog was no longer welcome to come into "Magnolia Hill." For a submissive wife, that is not proof of living what you preach!

"My favorite President's column from SEBTS days was about how Dr. Patterson's hound dog was no longer welcome to come into "Magnolia Hill." For a submissive wife, that is not proof of living what you preach!"

Check out his dog's tombstone. I sure hope the SBC did not pay for it. Even if we did not, it could mean we pay him too much if this is how he makes financial decisions:

What is interesting in studying church history, patriarchialism as authority started to take hold as the church was leaving Jewish aspects of the faith. Oskar Skarsone notes that Lord Supper Passover was observed by all assemblies. I heard someone say to their congregation member to just trust and tithe as means of submission and God will judge the ministers in terms of their stewardship if they don't do their end. If one knows the minister is not in accordance to their biblical end the member is not just to mindlessly submit and tithe. But this is the Stepford Wives theology that is being promoted by men like Patterson. It is noted in past that he has given advice to women to just submit to their husbands even if they are abusive.